All over the press today (try cnn.com or usatoday.com or one of the others) is the question Tom Ridge was fool enough to ask. What would need to be in place -- what laws, rules, situations, etc. -- to postpone the November elections in the event of a massive terrorist attack?

Well, Mr. Ridge, you've done more damage with the question than anyone is likely to do with a terrorist attack as far as the perception of your office and that of this administration. There is at this time no precedent and no evidence to suggest one is likely, for an event on the scale necessary to disrupt this country enough to make a difference at that crucial time. If a major city was disrupted its entirely possible that a case could be made to contest the results of that state -- but we've been through that before and the country didn't come to an end.

No, Tom, a more likely (and frightening) possibility would be the thought of using something as an excuse for the delay of an election should the results look bad for your side. Even were this not the case, a substantial number of people would always see it that way. Delaying the election would be the worst possible choice in nearly any realistic scenario less than a complete doomsday not even worth contemplating. The fact that you would ask a question like that in a way that invites public speculation when obviously it could have been done quite privately smacks of "trial balloon" -- well the public will not react well.

Tom, all you're doing is giving fodder to the radicals on both sides -- the 2nd amendment fanatics with the stockpiles of arms against the day the "gummint" turns hostile, and the liberal fanatics who are already firmly convinced that W's office is for whatever reason invalid.

The only emergency action anyone should be calling for, Mr. Ridge, is your resignation.